Don't know about faster...by 100mm they both could be at f4.5.... Case in point is Canon's own 70-300L ...starts at 70mm instead of 100mm ... But by ~103mm or so is the same f4.5 100-400 aperture. So Sony at ~100mm could be at f4.5.

And one could argue it is Sony who finally woke up as Canon has had that zoom on the market for more than a decade...if anything, Sony is the one catching up here! And whats more, even Sony opting for the white barrel smacks of a Canon imitation....as they say, imitation is the best form of flattery.

And one could argue it is Sony who finally woke up as Canon has had that zoom on the market for more than a decade...if anything, Sony is the one catching up here! And whats more, even Sony opting for the white barrel smacks of a Canon imitation....as they say, imitation is the best form of flattery.

Sony had the version 1 of this lens on the market for a couple of years now though. Flattery remaining all the same regardless

All I want is an improved Canon EF 100-400/4.0-5.6 L IS Mk. II ... rotary zoom design, fully sealed, better IS, better image quality at a similar price to the current 100-400.

Up to that last point, I thought you were sincere. If you really think an MkII version of the 100-400 will come out anywhere close to the price of the current version, we all need some of what you're smoking….

Personally, I don't understand the desire for such large range zooms. The more range you add, the less likely it is to be a clean lens. At some point you just need to change lenses. That is the whole point of an SLR; you can change lenses. What is next, a 10-800mm?

Personally, I don't understand the desire for such large range zooms. The more range you add, the less likely it is to be a clean lens. At some point you just need to change lenses. That is the whole point of an SLR; you can change lenses. What is next, a 10-800mm?

Personally, I don't understand the desire for such large range zooms. The more range you add, the less likely it is to be a clean lens. At some point you just need to change lenses. That is the whole point of an SLR; you can change lenses. What is next, a 10-800mm?

Actually, the point of a lens like that is that the things you shoot with it (birds, wildlife, outdoor sports) contain subjects that move a lot and might be 10ft from you one minute and 50ft from you the next. Changing lenses doesn't solve the issue, and for some of them (let's say on a Safari or shooting a mother bear and her cubs) getting closer is perhaps not the best idea.

Pretty much all zooms, except those on the very extreme ends (ultra-wides and fast super-tele), make a 3-4x zoom. Your 70-200's, 70-300's, 24-70, etc. Don't see too many people complaining about the tradeoffs of a 3x zoom in their new 24-70 or 70-200. And even the current 100-400 is pretty good optically, it just uses a different style zoom and could probably stand for some weight-saving technology that Canon has updated their other lenses with.

Personally, I don't understand the desire for such large range zooms. The more range you add, the less likely it is to be a clean lens. At some point you just need to change lenses. That is the whole point of an SLR; you can change lenses. What is next, a 10-800mm?

Actually, the point of a lens like that is that the things you shoot with it (birds, wildlife, outdoor sports) contain subjects that move a lot and might be 10ft from you one minute and 50ft from you the next. Changing lenses doesn't solve the issue, and for some of them (let's say on a Safari or shooting a mother bear and her cubs) getting closer is perhaps not the best idea.

Pretty much all zooms, except those on the very extreme ends (ultra-wides and fast super-tele), make a 3-4x zoom. Your 70-200's, 70-300's, 24-70, etc. Don't see too many people complaining about the tradeoffs of a 3x zoom in their new 24-70 or 70-200. And even the current 100-400 is pretty good optically, it just uses a different style zoom and could probably stand for some weight-saving technology that Canon has updated their other lenses with.

I've been shooting subjects like that (close and then far) for years. The solution is to use two bodies with two different lenses on them. Photographers have been using this standard setup for ages for close and then far subject matters such as field sports. I would rather shoot with a great prime and then a great zoom on two bodies rather than use a mega zoom with lower quality.

Again, that is my personal preference and the quality of the mega zooms is getting better all of the time (just not enough to entice me right now).